2014 Head Skis Mini Reviews

[Max_501]

I was wondering if you could elaborate on why you find the Mya 7 superior to the TT80, and on what those differences are. The appeal of the TT80 for me is that it's reportedly a good ski for practicing PMTS on groomers, and also works well in moguls (and I'm assuming its soft flex gives it some soft-snow versatility).

HH has written about the Maya 7. Sounds like a TT80 on mild steroids. I would not say the TT80 has a soft flex.

Might you happen to know if the Mojo 15 (which, from a pic, also doesn't appear to pull inward) has this same issue?

There is no issue with the PRD and brakes as far as I know. Sounds like Geoff's brakes were too wide for the ski or maybe they had already been bent.

[geoffda]

So the "TT" in the Head Icon TT-80 stood for "Torque Turning" technology. Max_501 was technically correct in that there was metal in the ski, but the metal consisted of stabilizers that were designed to increase torsional stiffness while allowing for a fairly soft longitudinal flex. Or as Head said, they didn't interfere with the longitudinal flex--which is to say that they didn't add any stiffness. I personally have always felt like the TT-80 is a relatively soft ski and that was apparently by design. But as I've said, the wood core broke down quickly and the TT tech didn't extend the life of the ski.

The Maya 7 has similar dimensions to the TT-80, but seems to have burlier construction. It is stiffer than the TT-80 and also has KERS, which gives it a nice snappy turn finish. It grips better than the TT-80 and it pushes back a bit harder when you lay it over. It is somewhat less forgiving that the TT-80, but it is a better all around performer. It has a great shape for bumps, but the added stiffness requires somewhat strong flexion/extension and fore-aft management skills.

I personally prefer the Maya 7 because it offers much stronger hard snow performance while still being versatile enough to ski well off-piste. But it is a more demanding ski.

In terms of the bindings, I think what I've decided is that the PR 11 is kind of a cheap binding and if there is a choice, it is much preferable to take the 12 or the 14. I think what may have happened is that the brake spring was weak and the brake wasn't retracting as far as it should which allowed me to catch it.

[theorist]

Thanks, Max and Geoff.

I was at a shop today checking out the PR11 and PRD12. Whatever the technical differences, if any, between their brakes, they appear to operate essentially the same with respect to retraction (consistent with what Max said).

In addition to any difference in robustness, another issue with the PR11 vs. the PR12 is their difference in ramp angle. Using calipers, I measured deltas of 6 mm for the PR11 and 3.5 mm for the PR12. I like moveable bindings because I'm sensitive to fore-aft position, and they allow me to dial that in. However, I'm also sensitive to ramp angle (I'm running the KneeBindings on my Laser SC's flat, i.e., 0 delta), and it occurs to me that, because moveable bindings are one-piece, you can't adjust the delta by shimming the toe. So if you like a flatter stance, that's another reason to avoid the PR11.

The PRD14, which features a different toe from the PRD12 (aero vs. LX, respectively), may have yet a different delta.

Incidentally, the Marker Schizo measured 5 mm.

[Max_501]

Max_501 was technically correct in that there was metal in the ski, but the metal consisted of stabilizers that were designed to increase torsional stiffness while allowing for a fairly soft longitudinal flex.

Marketing mumbo jumbo. The TT80 was NOT a soft ski. I'm certain of this because a fairly soft ski would never support the type of arcs Harald cranks on the TT80. It feels as stiff as the original SS to me. The newer SS with kers feels slightly stiffer which I'd guess is similar to the Maya 7 stiffness.

[ToddW]

Double check your measurements. Perhaps someone shimmed the powerrail base?

This year's published numbers from the Head Tyrolia Tech Manual are 5mm for the 11 and 5.5mm for the 12. The first year it was made, the PR 11 had a delta of only 3mm and then it got bumped up.

I've recently measured 3 different Tyrolia binding deltas with calipers (a long story) and the actual measurements closely agree with the published numbers.

From a safety perspective, the 12 feels like a more solid binding. I've only skied a couple days on the 11, but when a snowboarder bumped into me while using them the release was rough. I swapped them out for the 12.

[theorist]

Double check your measurements. Perhaps someone shimmed the powerrail base?

This year's published numbers from the Head Tyrolia Tech Manual are 5mm for the 11 and 5.5mm for the 12. The first year it was made, the PR 11 had a delta of only 3mm and then it got bumped up.

I've recently measured 3 different Tyrolia binding deltas with calipers (a long story) and the actual measurements closely agree with the published numbers.

From a safety perspective, the 12 feels like a more solid binding. I've only skied a couple days on the 11, but when a snowboarder bumped into me while using them the release was rough. I swapped them out for the 12.

Thanks for the info. Todd. I did them as carefully as I could (did each one three times and got the same measurement), and every time in the past that I've measured deltas I've gotten the mfr. values; but these were mounted on the display plates in the shop, so I had to work around that. It's possible there was some extra plastic I missed. If the published results and your measurements are in agreement, likely your values are correct. Too bad if both of them are ~5 mm -- then neither would be suitable for me (2-3 mm is about the most I can tolerate). I did send an email to Head earlier today asking for their delta values, and also about differences in robustness. I'll report back if they say anything interesting.

[ToddW]

Max_501 was technically correct in that there was metal in the ski, but the metal consisted of stabilizers that were designed to increase torsional stiffness while allowing for a fairly soft longitudinal flex.

Marketing mumbo jumbo. The TT80 was NOT a soft ski. I'm certain of this because a fairly soft ski would never support the type of arcs Harald cranks on the TT80. It feels as stiff as the original SS to me. The newer SS with kers feels slightly stiffer which I'd guess is similar to the Maya 7 stiffness.

I have to wonder if there was a manufacturing problem early on with some of the TT80.

I'm a big guy, but after about 30 days my TT80's went limp. At some point my tails became levered up in the air whenever I tried to get forward (yikes!) Bindings were mounted on the mark. Tried moving them back and forward but neither helped.

And yet others on this forum have said that they needed to move the bindings forward to ski the TT80 well. And my recollection of the first day is that they were stiffer than my pre-KERS supershapes. Besides, as Max_501 points out, Harald rips amazing turns on his pair and they support this load.

[HeluvaSkier]

I'm a big guy, but after about 30 days my TT80's went limp.

Funny way to describe a ski.

[theorist]

Does the Mya 7 have the same mount point as the TT80/800 (as the Mya is sold as a women's ski, they may have moved it forward)?

[jbotti]

Most Mya 7's come with PRD bindings which are totally adjustable so you can play with your mount position. Not sure where they have put the line on the ski.

[Mac]

Besides, as Max_501 points out, Harald rips amazing turns on his pair and they support this load.[/quote]

Of course, no one really knows how many pairs Harald went through. And I was never a fan of that ski. When it first came out, I had visions of the old Head iC 180, one of my favorite skis of all time. Very similar dimensions. But the Icon TT never quite measured up to those expectations, at least IMO.

[Max_501]

Of course, no one really knows how many pairs Harald went through.

Of course we know. Harald put about 90 days on his TT80s in the US and then left them in Austria for the camps he does out there. They are still going strong. Jbotti has at least 50 days on his and I jump on them whenever he lets me because they are my favorite ski for groomers and bumps. I had about the same on mine when I had to send them in to Head for a warranty replacement due to a topsheet delam. This was a mistake I will never make a again, because they were out of stock and sent me a ski I didn't want. Sucked because I could have fixed beloved TT80 with some epoxy.

And I was never a fan of that ski. When it first came out, I had visions of the old Head iC 180, one of my favorite skis of all time. Very similar dimensions. But the Icon TT never quite measured up to those expectations, at least IMO.

The TT80 responds to strong tipping and a forward position. If either of those is lacking you won't understand why PMTS coaches like the ski.

I have a hunch that some of the comments on lack of longevity may be due to bump skiing where the ski is being overly bent. With proper timing and flexion the ski hits the bump and bends as the skier flexes allowing the ski to immediately come back to its cambered shape. If the skier flexes late, not enough, or extends, the outcome is the ski constantly being shaped into rocker with extra pressure. I'd guess you could kill a race derived ski like the TT80 in less than 30 days with that type of movement pattern.

[Mac]

I don't think in Todd's case that the ski crapped out because of skiing a lot of bumps. It's not often that here in the East we have bumps that are soft enough that anyone would want to ski them anyway, except in the Spring. And I ski with Todd from time to time, never seen him do anything to abuse a ski. The pair I skied was a 170, definitely too short. I had ideas that it would be similar to the original Supershape, but that wasn't the case. But I remember Harald saying how disappointed he was when he first tried that ski, to the point where he felt that it was defective. Went to great lengths to experiment with base and side bevels til he got the ski to work for him. Probably just the result of a bad tune, but that might have had something to do with the reason why I didn't care for them, I see it happen all the time.
Or maybe I just suck so bad that I don't know a good ski from a bad one. I went out a few years back and spent some time skiing one on one with Harald, just so he could point out areas that I needed to improve in, and he didn't beat me up too bad. But maybe he just didn't want to hurt my feelings. My definition of a good ski is a ski that puts a smile on my face, but that's way too simple of a notion to get much traction around here.

[h.harb]

The Mya 7 is my favorite ski right now, I also skied the iSL Rebel this year in gates and on ice, it's a great ski. Even skied it in 165cm and had no worries. However with the Maya 7 earlier this season, when the bumps were harder and bigger; it skied great, (west wall and Slalom Hill, at A-Basin) also Ram Rod, but those are easy bumps. The Mya 7 holds really well, and is so smooth, yet has rebound. I ski it in a 170cm. It feels like a Stockli, however for $500 less, and with a better side cut, it carves, holds and it bumps. Better than the TT800 by far. It's beefier than the TT80, but based on it.

Head is discontinuing it, from it present state, but you never know, it might pop up again with a different name. This isn't disparaging toward women, but this is not a women's ski, it would seem, too strong, and aggressive for other than a seriously good women skiers. Yet, many Women we sold it to, loved it, most demoed it, loved it, even at the advanced intermediate level, which is amazing in it's own right. We might see it in the future under a different name, it's too good to drop. I'll let you know.

[Max_501]

Or maybe I just suck so bad that I don't know a good ski from a bad one.

Like I said earlier...

The TT80 responds to strong tipping and a forward position. If either of those is lacking you won't understand why PMTS coaches like the ski.